Ok. I read the thread posted by Doug, and quite frankly, there was not much I could take from it. Most of what it says just doesn't apply to the particular set of circumstances in Eastern American history. Trying to compare the Eastern Native language groups vocabularies with that type of model is essentially like trying to throw a baseball with your foot. Basically, overkill in the opposite direction from those who see similarity behind every bush. If there were two languages so closely related as to fit that model, I doubt one would need the services of a linguist to figure it out. Here, linguists would do much better on the grammar side of things.